[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 29 Apr 2011, at 23:23, thomasruhm wrote:
Actually, as I've been writing the introduction to my Dravean reference grammar today, I've been pondering exactly the same thing.I did not find anything about Dravean. Is it a completely constructed language or is it like Dalmatian?
There's nothing online as such about it, save a few isolated posts here and there on the Zompist bboard. It's designed to be a naturalistic descendant of Vulgar Latin, a sister language to Dalmatian, as it were. A sample of what the language looks like:
Laodu molt! Este'l draveàn, na langa romanca ca san favlaja antela Panugna del tramunt. Jal vule jastro o zèner de na varietà efra'l rumàn, el dalmatic e'l taglàn (cu nesca influense retoromanche pe bun pais). Jal a mu nesca onnei, pru man sai deçais de reciant de scuglar- lu dela truma, de puart percal ch'eu pusa bein utilizar na langa fonzeunala antel cast thread, envaiç percal ch'eu u cautat de reciant na copèia del » Dalmatico « pe Bartoli a uz-translations e'l codeiç a remprandut l'infatoasun maja pel dalmatic.
For all:Is there a tradition in making improbable romanic orientated conlangs, if one doesn't count auxlangs?
For what it's worth, it seems to me that romlangs occur in four basic "flavours", in roughly decreasing order of frequency:
1) Occidental/Interlingua-style auxlangs2) bogolangs, where a romance language is derived using the soundchanges of another real-world language. As exemplified by Brithenig, Wenedyk et al. 3) naturalistic languages, designed to look as if they could actually be natlangs: in this category would fall Rhodrese, Tundrian and Ibran. 4) crazy, fun "screw this, I'll do what I want" derivatives of Latin, either classical or vulgar. The only examples which readily spring to mind are Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets' old Reman and Ronald Kyrmse's Xliponian.
I'm assuming it's the last kind you mean? Dan